Your editorial, ('Fix it', #202) highlights the attractiveness of the constitutient assembly to political parties and the rebels. For the political parties, it is a check and balance against the king. For the Maoists, it is a pragmatic solution to an unwinnable war. The odd man out is the king.

The present king and his advisers are in a quagmire because of their short-sighted policies and ill-advised political moves. The king was justified to fire the orginal Deuba government as per the consitution, but should have let the political parties form a unity government to conduct fair and free elections as they had wished after coming up with a common minimum program with both the palace and the parties. Had this been done, there would not have been be any republican slogans on the streets and no anti-regression rallies. The king's influence and position as supreme commander of the Royal Nepali Army would have never been questioned. His own personal assets and royal expenditure wouldn't have been discussed by the media. And there may even have been peace in the country by now. There is a lesson to be learnt for all here. The king and his advisers should brush up on Machievelli, if not Chanakya. The king has shown a certain 'youthful exuberance' that has cost the nation dearly. This is the problem with a benevolent dictator/king formula: we never know what their successors are going to be like.

SN Singh,
email